LMFAO, Bin Laden died in December of 2001 to be used as a boogyman for both the Bush and then Obama administration.

See here:

https://www.amazon.com/Osama-Bin-Laden-Dead-Alive/dp/1566567831

that Bin Laden, who was suffering from Liver and Kidney failure in 2000 was at his death bed. It is likely that Bin Laden died in late 2001. He was on a dialysis machine since the late 1990's and could not have lived much longer, especially not in a bunker house with little to no medical supplies. Having kidney failure, he would have been one of the longest living persons on a dialysis machine who had no medical assistance and probably little supplies, if we are to take the unproven official narrative as truth. Many foreign articles were written about his death and the ceremonies that followed before being scrubbed many years later. It was western intelligence that likely used the Bin Laden narrative–might have even made a deal with him prior to his death–to prop him up as the boogeyman for geopolitical agendas after his death. Just prior to 9/11, the Bush family had met with the Bin Laden family, this cannot be a coincidence. Moreover, all the eyewitnesses of the 'Seal Team 6 raid' have made it clear that Bin Laden never lived there and that they probably, if they even did, killed an innocent man that had no relation to Bin Laden. Whether they killed someone or not–needless to say, it wasn't Bin Laden–just prior to an election in order to get Obama elected, is not hard to see. It was both a political operation and the end of one successful geopolitical PsyOp for continuous war.

Bin Laden was always a CIA asset and we can most definitely connect this information to some of his living relatives who push US/ZOG/state department geopolitical agendas. An article was written just a few weeks ago where one of Bin Laden's relatives gave her strong support for Trump, whilst wearing a 'Make America Great Again' hat. How much of that article is true, I do not know. We must remember, also, that Bin Laden was an enemy of Saudi Arabia. Back in 2001, during the 9/11 Likudnik, 5th column ZioCon and (probable) Bush oligarch event, the simulated SAUDI hijackers who had Mossad agents in Hollywood, Fl., were to, supposedly, be blamed for the 9/11 attacks. The Anthrax attacks, which had been sent to two democrat congressmen who refused to sign the patriot act were initially blamed on neo-Nazis, probably as a lampoon; and then the state of Iraq and later Al Qaeda and after that an Arab chemist who sued for libel and finally Bruce Ivins who conveniently committed suicide before his trial. Robert Mueller was a propagator during 9/11 of false information, such as finding the 'hijacker passport' in the "wreckage of UA93', not unlike the Zionist police officer that Trump just recently pardoned, Brandon Kerik, who found, allegedly, another Arab passport of one of the "hijackers" in the wreckage of the twin towers; Trump also pardoned the notorious Michael Milkin. Before ZioCon Jews in media nearly outed themselves by pushing false information, Iraq and Al Qaeda were to be blamed for the anthrax attacks. There appeared to be infighting within the executive branch and state department over which narrative to propagate. It appears the Bush aligned oligarchs wanted to blame a lone domestic terrorist who had no affiliations with Arabs, probably because independent scientists found out that the Anthrax spores were tin-coated and quite sophisticated that it had to have come from either the US, Israel or China. The Jewish neocons wanted to blame Iraq. Robert Mueller was head of the FBI, I believe, and covered-up the anthrax attacks. Later we see this ''Mueller report'' which did expose some aspects of Trump and Russia but not much else. Seems to me that Mueller is part of the Anglo side of the spectrum and Trump the British Israelism side of whom has connections to many Russian oligarchs. In the end, limited hangout narratives were pushed and not much else.

Moreover, anthrax killed a mailman who was the husband of a Florida reporter that lived right near the Mossad agents apartments. I mention this because when we observe the Anthrax letters we can see that they were written as if someone wanted the person reading them to believe that a muslim jihadist had written it. "It said death to Israel, death to the US." There was also clear incidences in the media trying to link the anthrax perps to the hijackers. These narratives were likely pre-written before the event. Two participants, Jewish, one in particular, Judith Miller, in a drill titled Operation Darkwinter where chemical agents, including Anthrax would be released by Iraq and rouge actors through the mail, were later sent fake anthrax in the mail that they then blamed on Iraq. Apparently, the planned for this and the rouge actors happened to give them fake anthrax for them to conveniently blame Iraq, and those who didn't want to sign the patriot act, got real anthrax.

What I'm trying to get at here, is this... that all of these oligarchs and Think Tanks, with mutual and diverse agendas, all benefited from the attacks and used it to their benefit.

[There] appears to be an attempt to deflect suspicion from the faction of Israeli and American Zionists who most likely planned and executed 9/11 onto the Anglo-American/Arab power bloc the former see as their main competition for influence and control over the U.S. Most powerfully symbolized by the close relationship between the Bush family and the oil-rich monarchies, this power bloc, however undemocratic and corrupt itself, has long been a thorn in the side of Israel's ambitions for regional hegemony, and as such has also for years been a favorite bogeyman of the Zionist dominated liberal end of the media and academic spectrum.

[A good history lesson; we can observe a long subversive alliance between British Israelism and Racist masonic Jewish organizations as well as Scottish Rite freemasonry directed for the longest time against the Anglo-American power bloc.]

That the criticisms leveled against them have long been valid, as this group has its own hegemonic ambitions (that manifested itself, for example, in numerous subversions of popular will around the world when those movements threatened their position), is no reason to assume that because many of its members were in a position to assist in the execution of 9/11 that they actually did so, however tempting it may be.

It should be noted that before 9/11 and after assuming the presidency (apparently illegaly), the Bush administration became the first American administration to openly call for the formation of a Palestinian state.

While many Zionists (like Noam Chomsky) advocate this solution, the Israeli political elite, led by Likud, the ideological progeny of the Irgun (the terrorist movement that called for a "Greater Israel" encompassing Jordan, Syria, and the Sinai peninsula in addition to Palestine) have no intention of allowing a Palestinian state into being.

Tellingly, upon their arrest, the five so-called "Dancing Israelis" said that "your problem is our problem...the Palestinians are the problem." Also, the first claim of responsibility for the attacks was made by the Democratic Front for the Liberation Palestine, and we all remember the American media showing us dubious video of "Palestinians celebrating the attacks". It appears that the original plan, in other words, may have been to blame Palestinian terrorists.

[...yes, this is true and also Saudi Arabia. Why Saudi Arabia, because Saudi's are friends to the Bush Oligarchs, at least financially, but the neocons and Likudniks are not the greatest friends of the Saudis. This is made clear in the Likudniks 'Securing the Realm' document where they depict Saudi Arabia as an enemy of which to be Balkenized. Is it any wonder then that later Bin Laden, an enemy of Saudi Arabia, would be blamed despite those "Saudi" "hijackers" with Mossad handlers? Of course, there were former Mossad agents in Britain, probably working for MI6 that blamed Al Qaeda and Afghanistan on live tv which went hand-in-hand with the UNOCAL agenda against Afghanistan. Kristol and other neocons would then go unto do presentations at Harvard and write books about how disastrous the Afghanistan war was, despite them being pro-interventionist against Iraq and other states. I remember Kagan even saying during an interview, "Who cares about Afghanistan, it's about Iraq."]